Date: Sat, 28 Dec 2002 18:06:11 +0000
From: "steve.devos" <steve.devos-AT-krokodile.co.uk>
Subject: Re: global elites...and Goodness




Eric

Yes. All charity organisations are NGOs (Non-GOV-Orgs)  - but in the 
last decade or so there has been significant reinvention of charities 
from small organisations that exist to 'help others' (both human and 
non-human) into a new information/industrial sector.  The ostensible 
reason for there existence remains within the area of operation and 
concern of the organisation and whilst they are regulated by the state 
(see for example http://www.charity-commission.gov.uk) this has not 
prevented a rise in the increasingly unethical practices that are being 
adopted as they become more central to the operation of the society - 
it's not clear how long these organisations or there practices will be 
sustainable before the charities fall into crisis and decline.  It 
appears that they will continue to exist however because of there 
usefulness within our marginally different social systems. Not 
withstanding this there is no equivilant to the appalling  behavior 
mentioned in relation to the 'middle-class' in the USA. The nearest 
equivilant would be the tendency for bourgious women to 'try' and 
collect money for apolitical charities, but this is a long standing 
reactionary tradition that has always been understood (here) as deeply 
oppressive and reactionary.

"is charity a form of goodness or is it a form of evil?" Good and Evil 
don't exist, only actions and events - where did the religious side 
issue come from ? Given that we should not support reactionary 
ideologies even when they are 'doing good', as we would not support a 
stalinist or fascist charity, so we should not support a religious 
charity for precisely the same reasons. (sorry couldn't resist the joke)

regards
steve




Eric wrote:

> Steve,
>
>  
>
> Can you expand upon Wallerstein a bit more and charity in England. 
>  Are you talking about NGO's? I'm not exactly sure what you are 
> referring to.
>
>  
>
> eric
>
>  
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-lyotard-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu 
> [mailto:owner-lyotard-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu] On Behalf Of steve.devos
> Sent: Friday, December 27, 2002 2:33 PM
> To: lyotard-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
> Subject: Re: global elites...and Goodness
>
>  
>
> Eric/Hugh/All
>
> Just to drift across the emails of the past few days.
>
> I was bemused by Hardt's recent rather depressed response to the 
> current events,  what Hardt seems to have temporarily forgotton is 
> that changes at a legislative and (mainstream) political level take 
> place as a result of political struggle. I mentioned earlier 
> Wallerstein's interesting text in NLR 18 discussing anti-systemic 
> responses to the current system - this seems a more useful position to 
> follow through.  It seems that Hardt currently has become depressed 
> enough to (I phantisize wildly) believe that  we are now in a position 
> to prevent the development of the 'Empire', to  truncate the continued 
> development of the system that they defined as 'Empire', the 
> anti-systemic responses to the development of 'Empire' have been more 
> effective than I previously imagined seemingly slowing or stopping the 
> development of the system.  Alternatively do you think that resistence 
> to the system N&H call 'Empire' is solely from the nation-states?  As 
> a theory it engages with the state of things in the G20 countries, the 
> slow death of neo-liberalism and the growth of  resistance but it does 
> not address the shifts evidenced by what can be seen to be the 
> increasing controls on the free-market in the other main G20 
> countries, the slow painful acceptance that local (European) controls 
> will need to be created and enforced if the 'free-market' is to enable 
> the development of southern economies.
>
> Given that we wait to see how far the world economy (especially the 
> US) will fall when and if the USA engages in the unnecessary invasion 
> of Iraq, and possibly into complete economic collapse when it enages 
> with North Korea ? after that Iran ?
>
> Charity is an interesting issue - in Europe it has been one of the 
> great areas of economic expansion during the past 5-6 years.  Whilst 
> still on the margins of the economy, in some senses, it is 
> increasingly apparant that it is gradually becoming a critical area of 
> privitisation of the support for marginal groups (cancer patients, 
> children, aids, water for africa and so on).  But it is worth 
> remembering that it is now simply an industrial sector, an aspect of 
> the information economy - for example students using it as a means of 
> gaining some additional spending money, through selling their 
> 'charity' to people in transit on the street.  I won't comment on the 
> obvious differences between here and the USA - except to say that the 
> approach is always of necessity 'secular'. I suspect that we are not 
> talking of individual responses, individual charitable actions but the 
> construction of a new information economic structure that is radically 
> different to the 'middle-class' individuals Eric refers to... Are the 
> middle-class individuals more acceptable in the USA rather than a new 
> economic sector employing 10s of thousands of people?
>
> regards
> steve
> Eric wrote:
>
> I viewed the web site for which Hugh provided the link, and I must 
> say, aside from the religious piety, the message can easily be 
> reinterpreted along Kantian lines - the categorical imperative which 
> states people must be treated as ends in themselves with respect to 
> their humanity.   While the story is a variation on the age-old 
> narrative of the 'guest treated hospitably who turns out to be a god', 
> the story is interesting insofar as it deals with this basic Kantian 
> theme of disinterestedness. Without knowing who the individuals really 
> are, the man simply does his duty because it is the right thing to do, 
> out of a pure will of benevolence.
>
>  
>
> This is similar in many respects to the posting by Steve pointing to 
> an article by Michael Hardt.  The same themes remain in play, only 
> this time at the level of nations.   It is interesting that the book 
> "Empire" spoke about the emergence of Empire as a kind of 'fait 
> accompli' but now, only a few years later, Hardt appears to recognize 
> that Empire is not yet here, but still needs to be created.   He now 
> speak of it as a kind of moral imperative, and invokes it as a way for 
> advanced nations such as the US to achieve enlightened self-interest 
> and not merely make the same kind of counterproductive mistakes in 
> narrowing pursuing their short-term interests that the Roman empire 
> once did.   
>
>  
>
> Perhaps it is just my own idiosyncratic interpretation, but Hardt now 
> sounds to me a little like Rawls, advocating a global political 
> liberalism of 'justice as fairness' where the principle of 
> disinterestedness becomes identical to the veil of ignorance. Nations 
> must move towards greater principles of greater equality except where 
> it can be shown that relative inequalities lead to better conditions 
> overall.  Here again the concept of the good appears to be reframed in 
> a Kantian way as the disinterested pursuit of the Kingdom of ends, now 
> framed in cosmopolitan terms towards an emerging global order.
>
>  
>
> The major difference between the two web sites appears to be found in 
> the difference between the concept of charity and the concept of 
> rights.   Is goodness to be merely the discretionary prerogative of 
> the powerful and benevolent (as charity dictates) or it is a right, a 
> positive freedom, which is entailed under the basic concept of our 
> humanity? (What FDR once called freedom from want and fear.)
>
>  
>
> George W. Bush recently spoke out at a food bank and asked Americans 
> to continue to make contributions to these charities in a hour of 
> need.  The fact of the matter is, however, because of the economic 
> recession, contributions are trending downward at a time when the need 
> has sharply increased and a number of charities have been severely 
> crippled in their ability to respond. This is coupled with the fact 
> that in spite of rhetoric about 'compassionate conservativism' 
> government programs for the poor have simultaneously been sharply 
> curtailed, leaving Bush in the position of either being naively 
> ignorant or simply hypocritical when he calls upon others to give.  
> The irony of his comments is also lost on a media which remains silent.
>
>  
>
> The question that really needs to be asked here is whether goodness 
> can continue to be construed today in terms of charity and generosity? 
> Or do these social forms (usually religious in nature) actually serve 
> only to mask a greater social evil?  
>
>  
>
> Recently in the United States , it has become fashionable for 
> middle-class individuals to have gift trees at Christmas time.  
> Individuals take a tag and purchase food and/or toys for a poor 
> family.   The middle-class gets to feel good about itself and the poor 
> get consumer goods they could not otherwise afford.   Both parties 
> benefit. Right?
>
>  
>
> The hard answer may be that these forms of charity merely serve to 
> perpetuate intolerable differences of inequality.  Critics of welfare 
> once argued that welfare merely creates a 'culture of dependency' but 
> what does this kind of charity do? To the extent that religion 
> encourages such behaviors, doesn't it actually become an obstacle to 
> the necessary development of basic human rights. Thus the question 
> needs to be asked - is charity a form of goodness or is it a form of evil?
>
>  
>
> That is the question that haunts a world still dreaming of Empire.
>
>  
>
> eric   
>
>  
>
>   
>
>  
>
>  
>
>  
>

HTML VERSION:

Steve,

 

Can you expand upon Wallerstein a bit more and charity in England.  Are you talking about NGO’s? I’m not exactly sure what you are referring to.

 

eric

 

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-lyotard-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu [mailto:owner-lyotard-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu] On Behalf Of steve.devos
Sent: Friday, December 27, 2002 2:33 PM
To: lyotard-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
Subject: Re: global elites...and Goodness

 

Eric/Hugh/All

Just to drift across the emails of the past few days.

I was bemused by Hardt's recent rather depressed response to the current events,  what Hardt seems to have temporarily forgotton is that changes at a legislative and (mainstream) political level take place as a result of political struggle. I mentioned earlier Wallerstein's interesting text in NLR 18 discussing anti-systemic responses to the current system - this seems a more useful position to follow through.  It seems that Hardt currently has become depressed enough to (I phantisize wildly) believe that  we are now in a position to prevent the development of the 'Empire', to  truncate the continued development of the system that they defined as 'Empire', the anti-systemic responses to the development of 'Empire' have been more effective than I previously imagined seemingly slowing or stopping the development of the system.  Alternatively do you think that resistence to the system N&H call 'Empire' is solely from the nation-states?  As a theory it engages with the state of things in the G20 countries, the slow death of neo-liberalism and the growth of  resistance but it does not address the shifts evidenced by what can be seen to be the increasing controls on the free-market in the other main G20 countries, the slow painful acceptance that local (European) controls will need to be created and enforced if the 'free-market' is to enable the development of southern economies.

Given that we wait to see how far the world economy (especially the US) will fall when and if the USA engages in the unnecessary invasion of Iraq, and possibly into complete economic collapse when it enages with North Korea ? after that Iran ?

Charity is an interesting issue - in Europe it has been one of the great areas of economic expansion during the past 5-6 years.  Whilst still on the margins of the economy, in some senses, it is increasingly apparant that it is gradually becoming a critical area of privitisation of the support for marginal groups (cancer patients, children, aids, water for africa and so on).  But it is worth remembering that it is now simply an industrial sector, an aspect of the information economy - for example students using it as a means of gaining some additional spending money, through selling their 'charity' to people in transit on the street.  I won't comment on the obvious differences between here and the USA - except to say that the approach is always of necessity 'secular'. I suspect that we are not talking of individual responses, individual charitable actions but the construction of a new information economic structure that is radically different to the 'middle-class' individuals Eric refers to... Are the middle-class individuals more acceptable in the USA rather than a new economic sector employing 10s of thousands of people?

regards
steve
Eric wrote:

I viewed the web site for which Hugh provided the link, and I must say, aside from the religious piety, the message can easily be reinterpreted along Kantian lines - the categorical imperative which states people must be treated as ends in themselves with respect to their humanity.   While the story is a variation on the age-old narrative of the ‘guest treated hospitably who turns out to be a god’, the story is interesting insofar as it deals with this basic Kantian theme of disinterestedness. Without knowing who the individuals really are, the man simply does his duty because it is the right thing to do, out of a pure will of benevolence.

 

This is similar in many respects to the posting by Steve pointing to an article by Michael Hardt.  The same themes remain in play, only this time at the level of nations.   It is interesting that the book “Empire” spoke about the emergence of Empire as a kind of ‘fait accompli’ but now, only a few years later, Hardt appears to recognize that Empire is not yet here, but still needs to be created.   He now speak of it as a kind of moral imperative, and invokes it as a way for advanced nations such as the US to achieve enlightened self-interest and not merely make the same kind of counterproductive mistakes in narrowing pursuing their short-term interests that the Roman empire once did.   

 

Perhaps it is just my own idiosyncratic interpretation, but Hardt now sounds to me a little like Rawls, advocating a global political liberalism of ‘justice as fairness’ where the principle of disinterestedness becomes identical to the veil of ignorance. Nations must move towards greater principles of greater equality except where it can be shown that relative inequalities lead to better conditions overall.  Here again the concept of the good appears to be reframed in a Kantian way as the disinterested pursuit of the Kingdom of ends, now framed in cosmopolitan terms towards an emerging global order.

 

The major difference between the two web sites appears to be found in the difference between the concept of charity and the concept of rights.   Is goodness to be merely the discretionary prerogative of the powerful and benevolent (as charity dictates) or it is a right, a positive freedom, which is entailed under the basic concept of our humanity? (What FDR once called freedom from want and fear.)

 

George W. Bush recently spoke out at a food bank and asked Americans to continue to make contributions to these charities in a hour of need.  The fact of the matter is, however, because of the economic recession, contributions are trending downward at a time when the need has sharply increased and a number of charities have been severely crippled in their ability to respond. This is coupled with the fact that in spite of rhetoric about ‘compassionate conservativism’ government programs for the poor have simultaneously been sharply curtailed, leaving Bush in the position of either being naively ignorant or simply hypocritical when he calls upon others to give.  The irony of his comments is also lost on a media which remains silent.

 

The question that really needs to be asked here is whether goodness can continue to be construed today in terms of charity and generosity? Or do these social forms (usually religious in nature) actually serve only to mask a greater social evil?  

 

Recently in the United States , it has become fashionable for middle-class individuals to have gift trees at Christmas time.  Individuals take a tag and purchase food and/or toys for a poor family.   The middle-class gets to feel good about itself and the poor get consumer goods they could not otherwise afford.   Both parties benefit. Right?

 

The hard answer may be that these forms of charity merely serve to perpetuate intolerable differences of inequality.  Critics of welfare once argued that welfare merely creates a ‘culture of dependency’ but what does this kind of charity do? To the extent that religion encourages such behaviors, doesn’t it actually become an obstacle to the necessary development of basic human rights. Thus the question needs to be asked - is charity a form of goodness or is it a form of evil?

 

That is the question that haunts a world still dreaming of Empire.

 

eric